Pathway Summary

Consort map

Demographic information

## There was an error in 'add_p()/add_difference()' for variable 'occupation', p-value omitted:
## Error in stats::fisher.test(c("retired", "other", "unemploy", "unemploy", : FEXACT 錯誤碼 7(location). LDSTP=18600 對此問題而言太小，
##   (pastp=75.886, ipn_0:=ipoin[itp=311]=212, stp[ipn_0]=72.8731).
## 請增加工作空間或考慮使用 'simulate.p.value=TRUE'

## There was an error in 'add_p()/add_difference()' for variable 'fam_income', p-value omitted:
## Error in stats::fisher.test(c("20001_above", "10001_12000", "4001_6000", : FEXACT 錯誤碼 7(location). LDSTP=18600 對此問題而言太小，
##   (pastp=67.1938, ipn_0:=ipoin[itp=296]=46, stp[ipn_0]=65.9524).
## 請增加工作空間或考慮使用 'simulate.p.value=TRUE'

Characteristic	N	Overall, N = 2381	control, N = 1191	treatment, N = 1191	p-value2
age	236	51.30 ± 13.02 (23 - 75)	50.76 ± 13.39 (23 - 75)	51.82 ± 12.69 (28 - 75)	0.532
Unknown		2	2	0
gender	238				0.316
f		194 (82%)	94 (79%)	100 (84%)
m		44 (18%)	25 (21%)	19 (16%)
occupation	238
day_training		6 (2.5%)	2 (1.7%)	4 (3.4%)
full_time		26 (11%)	13 (11%)	13 (11%)
homemaker		32 (13%)	15 (13%)	17 (14%)
other		4 (1.7%)	1 (0.8%)	3 (2.5%)
part_time		42 (18%)	23 (19%)	19 (16%)
retired		57 (24%)	26 (22%)	31 (26%)
self_employ		8 (3.4%)	4 (3.4%)	4 (3.4%)
shelter		4 (1.7%)	4 (3.4%)	0 (0%)
student		2 (0.8%)	0 (0%)	2 (1.7%)
t_and_e		4 (1.7%)	3 (2.5%)	1 (0.8%)
unemploy		53 (22%)	28 (24%)	25 (21%)
marital	238				0.875
cohabitation		2 (0.8%)	0 (0%)	2 (1.7%)
divore		26 (11%)	14 (12%)	12 (10%)
in_relationship		4 (1.7%)	2 (1.7%)	2 (1.7%)
married		71 (30%)	33 (28%)	38 (32%)
none		113 (47%)	58 (49%)	55 (46%)
seperation		3 (1.3%)	2 (1.7%)	1 (0.8%)
widow		19 (8.0%)	10 (8.4%)	9 (7.6%)
edu	238				0.622
bachelor		48 (20%)	20 (17%)	28 (24%)
diploma		40 (17%)	24 (20%)	16 (13%)
hd_ad		6 (2.5%)	4 (3.4%)	2 (1.7%)
none		1 (0.4%)	0 (0%)	1 (0.8%)
postgraduate		16 (6.7%)	9 (7.6%)	7 (5.9%)
primary		20 (8.4%)	9 (7.6%)	11 (9.2%)
secondary_1_3		29 (12%)	17 (14%)	12 (10%)
secondary_4_5		65 (27%)	30 (25%)	35 (29%)
secondary_6_7		13 (5.5%)	6 (5.0%)	7 (5.9%)
fam_income	238
10001_12000		8 (3.4%)	2 (1.7%)	6 (5.0%)
12001_14000		11 (4.6%)	4 (3.4%)	7 (5.9%)
14001_16000		12 (5.0%)	4 (3.4%)	8 (6.7%)
16001_18000		5 (2.1%)	3 (2.5%)	2 (1.7%)
18001_20000		10 (4.2%)	7 (5.9%)	3 (2.5%)
20001_above		40 (17%)	24 (20%)	16 (13%)
2001_4000		35 (15%)	17 (14%)	18 (15%)
4001_6000		31 (13%)	14 (12%)	17 (14%)
6001_8000		21 (8.8%)	12 (10%)	9 (7.6%)
8001_10000		20 (8.4%)	11 (9.2%)	9 (7.6%)
below_2000		45 (19%)	21 (18%)	24 (20%)
medication	238	213 (89%)	106 (89%)	107 (90%)	0.833
onset_duration	236	15.15 ± 10.98 (0 - 63)	14.84 ± 11.30 (0 - 56)	15.47 ± 10.69 (0 - 63)	0.658
Unknown		2	0	2
onset_age	234	36.24 ± 14.75 (-18 - 72)	35.84 ± 13.75 (10 - 72)	36.63 ± 15.74 (-18 - 68)	0.682
Unknown		4	2	2
1Mean ± SD (Range); n (%)
2Two Sample t-test; Pearson's Chi-squared test; Fisher's exact test

Measurement

Table

Characteristic	N	Overall, N = 2381	control, N = 1191	treatment, N = 1191	p-value2
recovery_stage_a	238	3.14 ± 1.21 (1 - 5)	3.20 ± 1.21 (1 - 5)	3.08 ± 1.22 (1 - 5)	0.456
recovery_stage_b	238	17.93 ± 2.95 (4 - 24)	18.01 ± 3.13 (4 - 24)	17.85 ± 2.77 (9 - 24)	0.677
ras_confidence	238	29.97 ± 5.63 (9 - 45)	29.82 ± 5.76 (9 - 45)	30.13 ± 5.51 (9 - 45)	0.671
ras_willingness	238	11.66 ± 2.14 (3 - 15)	11.61 ± 2.11 (5 - 15)	11.70 ± 2.18 (3 - 15)	0.763
ras_goal	238	17.40 ± 3.33 (5 - 25)	17.23 ± 3.34 (5 - 25)	17.58 ± 3.32 (5 - 25)	0.415
ras_reliance	238	13.25 ± 2.87 (4 - 20)	13.16 ± 2.83 (5 - 20)	13.34 ± 2.91 (4 - 20)	0.636
ras_domination	238	9.82 ± 2.43 (3 - 15)	10.02 ± 2.44 (3 - 15)	9.62 ± 2.41 (3 - 15)	0.211
symptom	238	30.74 ± 9.96 (14 - 70)	31.36 ± 10.62 (14 - 70)	30.12 ± 9.27 (14 - 56)	0.337
slof_work	238	22.17 ± 4.63 (10 - 30)	22.27 ± 4.36 (12 - 30)	22.08 ± 4.90 (10 - 30)	0.748
slof_relationship	238	25.08 ± 5.76 (9 - 35)	24.68 ± 5.82 (9 - 35)	25.48 ± 5.69 (11 - 35)	0.286
satisfaction	238	20.49 ± 7.22 (5 - 35)	19.90 ± 7.22 (5 - 35)	21.08 ± 7.20 (5 - 35)	0.210
mhc_emotional	238	10.87 ± 3.76 (3 - 19)	10.77 ± 3.77 (3 - 18)	10.96 ± 3.76 (3 - 19)	0.705
mhc_social	238	15.33 ± 6.01 (5 - 30)	15.34 ± 6.08 (5 - 30)	15.32 ± 5.96 (5 - 30)	0.974
mhc_psychological	238	21.87 ± 6.88 (6 - 36)	21.84 ± 6.80 (6 - 36)	21.90 ± 6.98 (6 - 36)	0.948
resilisnce	238	16.66 ± 4.47 (6 - 30)	16.29 ± 4.25 (6 - 30)	17.02 ± 4.68 (6 - 30)	0.214
social_provision	238	13.60 ± 2.78 (5 - 20)	13.24 ± 2.74 (5 - 20)	13.95 ± 2.78 (5 - 20)	0.050
els_value_living	238	17.07 ± 3.17 (5 - 25)	16.88 ± 3.13 (6 - 25)	17.25 ± 3.21 (5 - 25)	0.370
els_life_fulfill	238	12.84 ± 3.37 (4 - 20)	12.50 ± 3.44 (4 - 20)	13.17 ± 3.27 (4 - 20)	0.128
els	238	29.90 ± 6.02 (9 - 45)	29.39 ± 6.05 (11 - 45)	30.42 ± 5.97 (9 - 45)	0.186
social_connect	238	27.05 ± 9.11 (8 - 48)	27.56 ± 9.00 (8 - 48)	26.53 ± 9.23 (8 - 48)	0.382
shs_agency	238	14.45 ± 5.02 (3 - 24)	13.97 ± 4.99 (3 - 24)	14.92 ± 5.02 (3 - 24)	0.149
shs_pathway	238	15.91 ± 4.23 (3 - 24)	15.43 ± 4.36 (3 - 24)	16.39 ± 4.05 (4 - 24)	0.080
shs	238	30.35 ± 8.85 (6 - 48)	29.40 ± 8.98 (6 - 48)	31.30 ± 8.65 (7 - 48)	0.098
esteem	238	12.76 ± 1.68 (9 - 20)	12.80 ± 1.75 (9 - 20)	12.71 ± 1.62 (10 - 20)	0.701
mlq_search	238	14.79 ± 3.50 (3 - 21)	14.49 ± 3.55 (3 - 21)	15.09 ± 3.43 (3 - 21)	0.182
mlq_presence	238	13.50 ± 4.27 (3 - 21)	13.31 ± 4.17 (3 - 21)	13.69 ± 4.38 (3 - 21)	0.496
mlq	238	28.29 ± 6.97 (6 - 42)	27.80 ± 6.95 (6 - 42)	28.78 ± 7.00 (6 - 42)	0.278
empower	238	19.26 ± 4.47 (6 - 30)	19.00 ± 4.46 (6 - 30)	19.51 ± 4.49 (6 - 30)	0.377
ismi_resistance	238	14.39 ± 2.63 (5 - 20)	14.42 ± 2.52 (6 - 20)	14.35 ± 2.75 (5 - 20)	0.844
ismi_discrimation	238	11.75 ± 3.07 (5 - 20)	11.76 ± 3.03 (5 - 20)	11.74 ± 3.11 (5 - 20)	0.966
sss_affective	238	10.49 ± 3.70 (3 - 18)	10.40 ± 3.63 (3 - 18)	10.57 ± 3.78 (3 - 18)	0.727
sss_behavior	238	10.14 ± 3.80 (3 - 18)	10.22 ± 3.82 (3 - 18)	10.07 ± 3.79 (3 - 18)	0.759
sss_cognitive	238	8.90 ± 3.86 (3 - 18)	8.74 ± 3.80 (3 - 18)	9.07 ± 3.93 (3 - 18)	0.514
sss	238	29.53 ± 10.70 (9 - 54)	29.36 ± 10.59 (9 - 54)	29.71 ± 10.85 (9 - 54)	0.804
1Mean ± SD (Range)
2Two Sample t-test

Plot

## Warning: Removed 2 rows containing non-finite values (`stat_density()`).

## Warning: Removed 1 rows containing missing values (`geom_vline()`).

Data analysis

Table

Group	Characteristic	Beta	SE1	95% CI1	p-value
recovery_stage_a	(Intercept)	3.20	0.111	2.98, 3.42
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.118	0.157	-0.426, 0.191	0.455
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.035	0.147	-0.254, 0.323	0.815
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.309	0.210	-0.104, 0.721	0.144
	Pseudo R square	0.009
recovery_stage_b	(Intercept)	18.0	0.273	17.5, 18.5
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.160	0.386	-0.916, 0.597	0.680
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.225	0.280	-0.773, 0.323	0.422
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.878	0.401	0.093, 1.66	0.030
	Pseudo R square	0.007
ras_confidence	(Intercept)	29.8	0.523	28.8, 30.8
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.311	0.739	-1.14, 1.76	0.674
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.668	0.476	-0.264, 1.60	0.162
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	1.30	0.682	-0.033, 2.64	0.058
	Pseudo R square	0.020
ras_willingness	(Intercept)	11.6	0.194	11.2, 12.0
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.084	0.274	-0.453, 0.621	0.759
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.063	0.207	-0.343, 0.469	0.762
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.317	0.297	-0.264, 0.899	0.286
	Pseudo R square	0.006
ras_goal	(Intercept)	17.2	0.305	16.6, 17.8
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.353	0.432	-0.493, 1.20	0.414
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.298	0.301	-0.292, 0.889	0.324
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.559	0.431	-0.287, 1.40	0.197
	Pseudo R square	0.015
ras_reliance	(Intercept)	13.2	0.268	12.6, 13.7
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.176	0.379	-0.567, 0.920	0.642
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.249	0.253	-0.246, 0.744	0.326
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.570	0.362	-0.139, 1.28	0.117
	Pseudo R square	0.014
ras_domination	(Intercept)	10.0	0.223	9.58, 10.5
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.395	0.315	-1.01, 0.222	0.211
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.034	0.251	-0.526, 0.457	0.892
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.894	0.359	0.190, 1.60	0.014
	Pseudo R square	0.014
symptom	(Intercept)	31.4	0.912	29.6, 33.1
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-1.24	1.289	-3.77, 1.28	0.336
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-1.13	0.787	-2.67, 0.415	0.154
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.252	1.127	-2.46, 1.96	0.824
	Pseudo R square	0.008
slof_work	(Intercept)	22.3	0.420	21.4, 23.1
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.193	0.594	-1.36, 0.971	0.745
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.264	0.405	-0.530, 1.06	0.515
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.466	0.580	-0.671, 1.60	0.423
	Pseudo R square	0.003
slof_relationship	(Intercept)	24.7	0.526	23.6, 25.7
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.798	0.744	-0.660, 2.26	0.284
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.106	0.505	-1.10, 0.885	0.835
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.783	0.724	-0.635, 2.20	0.281
	Pseudo R square	0.011
satisfaction	(Intercept)	19.9	0.663	18.6, 21.2
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	1.18	0.938	-0.662, 3.01	0.211
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.826	0.611	-0.371, 2.02	0.178
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.358	0.875	-1.36, 2.07	0.683
	Pseudo R square	0.013
mhc_emotional	(Intercept)	10.8	0.344	10.1, 11.4
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.185	0.486	-0.768, 1.14	0.704
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.376	0.293	-0.199, 0.951	0.202
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.111	0.420	-0.935, 0.713	0.791
	Pseudo R square	0.002
mhc_social	(Intercept)	15.3	0.561	14.2, 16.4
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.025	0.794	-1.58, 1.53	0.975
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.653	0.499	-0.326, 1.63	0.193
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.003	0.715	-1.41, 1.40	0.997
	Pseudo R square	0.003
mhc_psychological	(Intercept)	21.8	0.649	20.6, 23.1
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.059	0.918	-1.74, 1.86	0.949
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	1.01	0.580	-0.130, 2.14	0.085
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.295	0.831	-1.92, 1.33	0.723
	Pseudo R square	0.004
resilisnce	(Intercept)	16.3	0.405	15.5, 17.1
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.723	0.572	-0.399, 1.84	0.208
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.752	0.404	-0.039, 1.54	0.064
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.745	0.578	-0.388, 1.88	0.199
	Pseudo R square	0.028
social_provision	(Intercept)	13.2	0.260	12.7, 13.8
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.706	0.368	-0.016, 1.43	0.056
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.191	0.258	-0.697, 0.315	0.461
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.514	0.370	-0.212, 1.24	0.167
	Pseudo R square	0.026
els_value_living	(Intercept)	16.9	0.294	16.3, 17.5
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.370	0.415	-0.444, 1.18	0.374
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.347	0.284	-0.210, 0.904	0.224
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.317	0.407	-0.481, 1.11	0.438
	Pseudo R square	0.012
els_life_fulfill	(Intercept)	12.5	0.306	11.9, 13.1
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.664	0.433	-0.184, 1.51	0.126
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.228	0.277	-0.315, 0.772	0.412
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.327	0.398	-0.452, 1.11	0.412
	Pseudo R square	0.017
els	(Intercept)	29.4	0.556	28.3, 30.5
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	1.03	0.786	-0.506, 2.57	0.189
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.605	0.485	-0.345, 1.56	0.214
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.612	0.695	-0.750, 1.97	0.380
	Pseudo R square	0.016
social_connect	(Intercept)	27.6	0.846	25.9, 29.2
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-1.03	1.197	-3.38, 1.31	0.388
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.125	0.721	-1.54, 1.29	0.862
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-2.87	1.033	-4.89, -0.842	0.006
	Pseudo R square	0.024
shs_agency	(Intercept)	14.0	0.465	13.1, 14.9
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.941	0.657	-0.347, 2.23	0.153
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.404	0.394	-0.367, 1.18	0.306
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.397	0.564	-0.709, 1.50	0.483
	Pseudo R square	0.015
shs_pathway	(Intercept)	15.4	0.377	14.7, 16.2
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.958	0.533	-0.088, 2.00	0.074
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.585	0.350	-0.101, 1.27	0.096
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.233	0.502	-0.750, 1.22	0.643
	Pseudo R square	0.022
shs	(Intercept)	29.4	0.803	27.8, 31.0
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	1.90	1.136	-0.328, 4.13	0.096
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.999	0.682	-0.338, 2.34	0.145
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.611	0.978	-1.31, 2.53	0.533
	Pseudo R square	0.020
esteem	(Intercept)	12.8	0.147	12.5, 13.1
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.084	0.207	-0.490, 0.322	0.685
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.130	0.186	-0.495, 0.235	0.486
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.087	0.267	-0.435, 0.610	0.743
	Pseudo R square	0.001
mlq_search	(Intercept)	14.5	0.317	13.9, 15.1
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.605	0.448	-0.273, 1.48	0.178
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.859	0.353	0.166, 1.55	0.016
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.766	0.506	-1.76, 0.226	0.132
	Pseudo R square	0.009
mlq_presence	(Intercept)	13.3	0.387	12.6, 14.1
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.378	0.548	-0.695, 1.45	0.490
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.839	0.402	0.052, 1.63	0.038
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.044	0.575	-1.17, 1.08	0.940
	Pseudo R square	0.010
mlq	(Intercept)	27.8	0.639	26.5, 29.1
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.983	0.903	-0.788, 2.75	0.277
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	1.70	0.672	0.381, 3.01	0.012
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.801	0.962	-2.69, 1.08	0.406
	Pseudo R square	0.011
empower	(Intercept)	19.0	0.416	18.2, 19.8
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.513	0.588	-0.640, 1.67	0.384
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.887	0.392	0.120, 1.65	0.025
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.257	0.561	-1.36, 0.843	0.648
	Pseudo R square	0.009
ismi_resistance	(Intercept)	14.4	0.237	14.0, 14.9
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.067	0.335	-0.724, 0.590	0.841
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	0.279	0.280	-0.270, 0.828	0.320
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	0.600	0.401	-0.186, 1.39	0.136
	Pseudo R square	0.015
ismi_discrimation	(Intercept)	11.8	0.283	11.2, 12.3
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.017	0.400	-0.801, 0.767	0.967
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.445	0.328	-1.09, 0.197	0.176
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.644	0.469	-1.56, 0.276	0.172
	Pseudo R square	0.018
sss_affective	(Intercept)	10.4	0.339	9.74, 11.1
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.168	0.480	-0.773, 1.11	0.727
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.422	0.314	-1.04, 0.193	0.181
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.684	0.450	-1.56, 0.198	0.131
	Pseudo R square	0.012
sss_behavior	(Intercept)	10.2	0.345	9.54, 10.9
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	-0.151	0.488	-1.11, 0.806	0.757
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.649	0.311	-1.26, -0.040	0.038
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.115	0.445	-0.988, 0.757	0.796
	Pseudo R square	0.009
sss_cognitive	(Intercept)	8.74	0.344	8.06, 9.41
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.328	0.487	-0.627, 1.28	0.502
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-0.542	0.314	-1.16, 0.074	0.087
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-0.573	0.450	-1.46, 0.310	0.205
	Pseudo R square	0.013
sss	(Intercept)	29.4	0.970	27.5, 31.3
	group
	control	—	—	—
	treatment	0.345	1.372	-2.34, 3.03	0.802
	time_point
	1st	—	—	—
	2nd	-1.59	0.805	-3.17, -0.012	0.050
	group * time_point
	treatment * 2nd	-1.32	1.154	-3.58, 0.939	0.254
	Pseudo R square	0.011
1SE = Standard Error, CI = Confidence Interval

Text

recovery_stage_a

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_a with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_a ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.40) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.24e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 3.20 (95% CI [2.98, 3.42], t(374) = 28.78, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.19], t(374) = -0.75, p = 0.455; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.16])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.32], t(374) = 0.23, p = 0.815; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.27])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.72], t(374) = 1.47, p = 0.142; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.60])

Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.

recovery_stage_b

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_b with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_b ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.66) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.94e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 18.01 (95% CI [17.47, 18.54], t(374) = 65.96, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.92, 0.60], t(374) = -0.41, p = 0.679; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.20])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-0.77, 0.32], t(374) = -0.80, p = 0.421; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.11])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.88, 95% CI [0.09, 1.66], t(374) = 2.19, p = 0.028; Std. beta = 0.30, 95% CI [0.03, 0.56])

ras_confidence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_confidence with group and time_point (formula: ras_confidence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.82 (95% CI [28.79, 30.84], t(374) = 57.04, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-1.14, 1.76], t(374) = 0.42, p = 0.674; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.31])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.67, 95% CI [-0.26, 1.60], t(374) = 1.40, p = 0.160; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.28])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.30, 95% CI [-0.03, 2.64], t(374) = 1.91, p = 0.056; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-5.71e-03, 0.46])

ras_willingness

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_willingness with group and time_point (formula: ras_willingness ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.62) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.04e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.61 (95% CI [11.23, 11.99], t(374) = 59.93, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.62], t(374) = 0.31, p = 0.759; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.30])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.47], t(374) = 0.30, p = 0.761; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.22])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.90], t(374) = 1.07, p = 0.285; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.43])

ras_goal

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_goal with group and time_point (formula: ras_goal ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.69) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.23 (95% CI [16.63, 17.83], t(374) = 56.45, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-0.49, 1.20], t(374) = 0.82, p = 0.414; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.36])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.89], t(374) = 0.99, p = 0.322; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.27])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.56, 95% CI [-0.29, 1.40], t(374) = 1.29, p = 0.195; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.42])

ras_reliance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_reliance with group and time_point (formula: ras_reliance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.16 (95% CI [12.63, 13.69], t(374) = 49.06, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.57, 0.92], t(374) = 0.47, p = 0.642; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.31])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.74], t(374) = 0.99, p = 0.324; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.25])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.57, 95% CI [-0.14, 1.28], t(374) = 1.58, p = 0.115; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.43])

ras_domination

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_domination with group and time_point (formula: ras_domination ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.58) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.02 (95% CI [9.58, 10.45], t(374) = 45.00, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.39, 95% CI [-1.01, 0.22], t(374) = -1.25, p = 0.210; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.09])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.53, 0.46], t(374) = -0.14, p = 0.892; Std. beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.19])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.89, 95% CI [0.19, 1.60], t(374) = 2.49, p = 0.013; Std. beta = 0.37, 95% CI [0.08, 0.66])

symptom

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict symptom with group and time_point (formula: symptom ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.10e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 31.36 (95% CI [29.57, 33.15], t(374) = 34.40, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.24, 95% CI [-3.77, 1.28], t(374) = -0.96, p = 0.335; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.13])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.13, 95% CI [-2.67, 0.41], t(374) = -1.43, p = 0.152; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.04])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.25, 95% CI [-2.46, 1.96], t(374) = -0.22, p = 0.823; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.20])

slof_work

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_work with group and time_point (formula: slof_work ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 3.32e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 22.27 (95% CI [21.45, 23.09], t(374) = 53.02, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-1.36, 0.97], t(374) = -0.33, p = 0.745; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.21])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.53, 1.06], t(374) = 0.65, p = 0.514; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.23])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.47, 95% CI [-0.67, 1.60], t(374) = 0.80, p = 0.422; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.35])

slof_relationship

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_relationship with group and time_point (formula: slof_relationship ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 24.68 (95% CI [23.65, 25.71], t(374) = 46.93, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.80, 95% CI [-0.66, 2.26], t(374) = 1.07, p = 0.283; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.39])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-1.10, 0.88], t(374) = -0.21, p = 0.834; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.15])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.78, 95% CI [-0.64, 2.20], t(374) = 1.08, p = 0.279; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.38])

satisfaction

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict satisfaction with group and time_point (formula: satisfaction ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.90 (95% CI [18.60, 21.20], t(374) = 30.01, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.18, 95% CI [-0.66, 3.01], t(374) = 1.25, p = 0.210; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.42])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.83, 95% CI [-0.37, 2.02], t(374) = 1.35, p = 0.176; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.28])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.36, 95% CI [-1.36, 2.07], t(374) = 0.41, p = 0.682; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.29])

mhc_emotional

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_emotional with group and time_point (formula: mhc_emotional ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 2.12e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.77 (95% CI [10.10, 11.45], t(374) = 31.35, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.77, 1.14], t(374) = 0.38, p = 0.704; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.30])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.38, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.95], t(374) = 1.28, p = 0.200; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.25])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.94, 0.71], t(374) = -0.26, p = 0.791; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.19])

mhc_social

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_social with group and time_point (formula: mhc_social ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 2.66e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.34 (95% CI [14.24, 16.44], t(374) = 27.33, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-1.58, 1.53], t(374) = -0.03, p = 0.975; Std. beta = -4.21e-03, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.26])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.65, 95% CI [-0.33, 1.63], t(374) = 1.31, p = 0.191; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.27])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.77e-03, 95% CI [-1.41, 1.40], t(374) = -3.87e-03, p = 0.997; Std. beta = -4.62e-04, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.23])

mhc_psychological

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_psychological with group and time_point (formula: mhc_psychological ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 3.58e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 21.84 (95% CI [20.57, 23.11], t(374) = 33.66, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-1.74, 1.86], t(374) = 0.06, p = 0.949; Std. beta = 8.43e-03, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.27])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.01, 95% CI [-0.13, 2.14], t(374) = 1.74, p = 0.083; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.31])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.29, 95% CI [-1.92, 1.33], t(374) = -0.35, p = 0.723; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.19])

resilisnce

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict resilisnce with group and time_point (formula: resilisnce ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.68) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.29 (95% CI [15.50, 17.09], t(374) = 40.27, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.72, 95% CI [-0.40, 1.84], t(374) = 1.26, p = 0.207; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.41])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.75, 95% CI [-0.04, 1.54], t(374) = 1.86, p = 0.062; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-8.72e-03, 0.34])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.75, 95% CI [-0.39, 1.88], t(374) = 1.29, p = 0.197; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.42])

social_provision

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_provision with group and time_point (formula: social_provision ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.69) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.24 (95% CI [12.73, 13.75], t(374) = 50.84, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.71, 95% CI [-0.02, 1.43], t(374) = 1.92, p = 0.055; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-5.53e-03, 0.49])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-0.70, 0.32], t(374) = -0.74, p = 0.460; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.11])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.51, 95% CI [-0.21, 1.24], t(374) = 1.39, p = 0.165; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.42])

els_value_living

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_value_living with group and time_point (formula: els_value_living ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.88 (95% CI [16.31, 17.46], t(374) = 57.51, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.37, 95% CI [-0.44, 1.18], t(374) = 0.89, p = 0.373; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.37])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.90], t(374) = 1.22, p = 0.222; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.28])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-0.48, 1.11], t(374) = 0.78, p = 0.436; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.35])

els_life_fulfill

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_life_fulfill with group and time_point (formula: els_life_fulfill ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.50 (95% CI [11.90, 13.10], t(374) = 40.85, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.66, 95% CI [-0.18, 1.51], t(374) = 1.53, p = 0.125; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.45])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.77], t(374) = 0.82, p = 0.410; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.23])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-0.45, 1.11], t(374) = 0.82, p = 0.411; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.33])

els

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els with group and time_point (formula: els ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.39 (95% CI [28.30, 30.48], t(374) = 52.90, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.03, 95% CI [-0.51, 2.57], t(374) = 1.32, p = 0.188; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.42])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.61, 95% CI [-0.34, 1.56], t(374) = 1.25, p = 0.212; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.25])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.61, 95% CI [-0.75, 1.97], t(374) = 0.88, p = 0.378; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.32])

social_connect

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_connect with group and time_point (formula: social_connect ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.56 (95% CI [25.90, 29.22], t(374) = 32.57, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.03, 95% CI [-3.38, 1.31], t(374) = -0.86, p = 0.388; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.14])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-1.54, 1.29], t(374) = -0.17, p = 0.862; Std. beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.14])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -2.87, 95% CI [-4.89, -0.84], t(374) = -2.77, p = 0.006; Std. beta = -0.30, 95% CI [-0.52, -0.09])

shs_agency

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_agency with group and time_point (formula: shs_agency ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.97 (95% CI [13.06, 14.89], t(374) = 30.06, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.94, 95% CI [-0.35, 2.23], t(374) = 1.43, p = 0.152; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.43])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.40, 95% CI [-0.37, 1.18], t(374) = 1.03, p = 0.304; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.23])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.40, 95% CI [-0.71, 1.50], t(374) = 0.70, p = 0.482; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.29])

shs_pathway

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_pathway with group and time_point (formula: shs_pathway ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.43 (95% CI [14.69, 16.17], t(374) = 40.90, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.96, 95% CI [-0.09, 2.00], t(374) = 1.80, p = 0.073; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.48])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.59, 95% CI [-0.10, 1.27], t(374) = 1.67, p = 0.094; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.31])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.75, 1.22], t(374) = 0.46, p = 0.643; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.29])

shs

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs with group and time_point (formula: shs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.40 (95% CI [27.83, 30.98], t(374) = 36.59, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.90, 95% CI [-0.33, 4.13], t(374) = 1.67, p = 0.095; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.46])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.00, 95% CI [-0.34, 2.34], t(374) = 1.46, p = 0.143; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.26])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.61, 95% CI [-1.31, 2.53], t(374) = 0.62, p = 0.532; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.28])

esteem

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict esteem with group and time_point (formula: esteem ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.44) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 1.12e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.80 (95% CI [12.51, 13.09], t(374) = 87.30, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.49, 0.32], t(374) = -0.41, p = 0.685; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.20])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.24], t(374) = -0.70, p = 0.486; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.15])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.61], t(374) = 0.33, p = 0.743; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.38])

mlq_search

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_search with group and time_point (formula: mlq_search ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.59) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.42e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.49 (95% CI [13.87, 15.11], t(374) = 45.75, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.61, 95% CI [-0.27, 1.48], t(374) = 1.35, p = 0.177; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.43])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.86, 95% CI [0.17, 1.55], t(374) = 2.43, p = 0.015; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [0.05, 0.45])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.77, 95% CI [-1.76, 0.23], t(374) = -1.51, p = 0.130; Std. beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-0.51, 0.06])

mlq_presence

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_presence with group and time_point (formula: mlq_presence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.65) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.31 (95% CI [12.55, 14.07], t(374) = 34.37, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.38, 95% CI [-0.70, 1.45], t(374) = 0.69, p = 0.490; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.34])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.84, 95% CI [0.05, 1.63], t(374) = 2.09, p = 0.037; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [0.01, 0.38])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-1.17, 1.08], t(374) = -0.08, p = 0.940; Std. beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.26])

mlq

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq with group and time_point (formula: mlq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.64) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.80 (95% CI [26.55, 29.05], t(374) = 43.51, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.98, 95% CI [-0.79, 2.75], t(374) = 1.09, p = 0.276; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.39])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.70, 95% CI [0.38, 3.01], t(374) = 2.53, p = 0.011; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [0.05, 0.43])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.80, 95% CI [-2.69, 1.08], t(374) = -0.83, p = 0.405; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.15])

empower

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict empower with group and time_point (formula: empower ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.73e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.00 (95% CI [18.18, 19.82], t(374) = 45.68, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.51, 95% CI [-0.64, 1.67], t(374) = 0.87, p = 0.383; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.37])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.89, 95% CI [0.12, 1.65], t(374) = 2.27, p = 0.023; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [0.03, 0.37])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.26, 95% CI [-1.36, 0.84], t(374) = -0.46, p = 0.647; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.19])

ismi_resistance

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_resistance with group and time_point (formula: ismi_resistance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.54) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.42 (95% CI [13.96, 14.88], t(374) = 60.83, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.72, 0.59], t(374) = -0.20, p = 0.841; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.23])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.83], t(374) = 1.00, p = 0.319; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.32])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.60, 95% CI [-0.19, 1.39], t(374) = 1.50, p = 0.135; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.53])

ismi_discrimation

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_discrimation with group and time_point (formula: ismi_discrimation ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.56) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.76 (95% CI [11.20, 12.31], t(374) = 41.56, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.80, 0.77], t(374) = -0.04, p = 0.966; Std. beta = -5.43e-03, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.25])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.45, 95% CI [-1.09, 0.20], t(374) = -1.36, p = 0.174; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.06])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.64, 95% CI [-1.56, 0.28], t(374) = -1.37, p = 0.170; Std. beta = -0.21, 95% CI [-0.51, 0.09])

sss_affective

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_affective with group and time_point (formula: sss_affective ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.40 (95% CI [9.74, 11.07], t(374) = 30.65, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.77, 1.11], t(374) = 0.35, p = 0.726; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.30])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.42, 95% CI [-1.04, 0.19], t(374) = -1.34, p = 0.179; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.05])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.68, 95% CI [-1.56, 0.20], t(374) = -1.52, p = 0.129; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.05])

sss_behavior

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_behavior with group and time_point (formula: sss_behavior ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.82e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.22 (95% CI [9.54, 10.90], t(374) = 29.60, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-1.11, 0.81], t(374) = -0.31, p = 0.757; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.21])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -0.65, 95% CI [-1.26, -0.04], t(374) = -2.09, p = 0.037; Std. beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-0.33, -0.01])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.99, 0.76], t(374) = -0.26, p = 0.795; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.20])

sss_cognitive

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_cognitive with group and time_point (formula: sss_cognitive ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 8.74 (95% CI [8.06, 9.41], t(374) = 25.37, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-0.63, 1.28], t(374) = 0.67, p = 0.501; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.34])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.54, 95% CI [-1.16, 0.07], t(374) = -1.72, p = 0.085; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.02])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.57, 95% CI [-1.46, 0.31], t(374) = -1.27, p = 0.203; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.08])

sss

We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss with group and time_point (formula: sss ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.36 (95% CI [27.46, 31.26], t(374) = 30.27, p < .001). Within this model:

The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-2.34, 3.03], t(374) = 0.25, p = 0.802; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.29])
The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.59, 95% CI [-3.17, -0.01], t(374) = -1.97, p = 0.048; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.30, -1.10e-03])
The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.32, 95% CI [-3.58, 0.94], t(374) = -1.15, p = 0.252; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.09])

Likelihood ratio tests

outcome	model	npar	AIC	BIC	logLik	deviance	Chisq	Df	p
recovery_stage_a	null	3	1,209.063	1,220.883	-601.531	1,203.063
recovery_stage_a	random	6	1,209.834	1,233.475	-598.917	1,197.834	5.228	3	0.156
recovery_stage_b	null	3	1,836.049	1,847.870	-915.024	1,830.049
recovery_stage_b	random	6	1,836.145	1,859.786	-912.072	1,824.145	5.904	3	0.116
ras_confidence	null	3	2,312.764	2,324.584	-1,153.382	2,306.764
ras_confidence	random	6	2,300.343	2,323.984	-1,144.172	2,288.343	18.420	3	0.000
ras_willingness	null	3	1,583.696	1,595.516	-788.848	1,577.696
ras_willingness	random	6	1,585.865	1,609.506	-786.932	1,573.865	3.831	3	0.280
ras_goal	null	3	1,915.883	1,927.703	-954.941	1,909.883
ras_goal	random	6	1,911.744	1,935.385	-949.872	1,899.744	10.139	3	0.017
ras_reliance	null	3	1,807.643	1,819.464	-900.822	1,801.643
ras_reliance	random	6	1,801.977	1,825.618	-894.989	1,789.977	11.666	3	0.009
ras_domination	null	3	1,708.568	1,720.389	-851.284	1,702.568
ras_domination	random	6	1,703.416	1,727.057	-845.708	1,691.416	11.153	3	0.011
symptom	null	3	2,709.579	2,721.399	-1,351.789	2,703.579
symptom	random	6	2,709.510	2,733.151	-1,348.755	2,697.510	6.069	3	0.108
slof_work	null	3	2,146.339	2,158.159	-1,070.169	2,140.339
slof_work	random	6	2,148.802	2,172.443	-1,068.401	2,136.802	3.536	3	0.316
slof_relationship	null	3	2,316.636	2,328.456	-1,155.318	2,310.636
slof_relationship	random	6	2,318.688	2,342.329	-1,153.344	2,306.688	3.947	3	0.267
satisfaction	null	3	2,485.553	2,497.374	-1,239.777	2,479.553
satisfaction	random	6	2,484.167	2,507.808	-1,236.083	2,472.167	7.387	3	0.061
mhc_emotional	null	3	1,961.720	1,973.541	-977.860	1,955.720
mhc_emotional	random	6	1,965.208	1,988.849	-976.604	1,953.208	2.512	3	0.473
mhc_social	null	3	2,346.071	2,357.891	-1,170.035	2,340.071
mhc_social	random	6	2,348.775	2,372.416	-1,168.387	2,336.775	3.296	3	0.348
mhc_psychological	null	3	2,458.460	2,470.280	-1,226.230	2,452.460
mhc_psychological	random	6	2,460.066	2,483.707	-1,224.033	2,448.066	4.394	3	0.222
resilisnce	null	3	2,141.734	2,153.554	-1,067.867	2,135.734
resilisnce	random	6	2,128.801	2,152.442	-1,058.401	2,116.801	18.932	3	0.000
social_provision	null	3	1,794.794	1,806.615	-894.397	1,788.794
social_provision	random	6	1,792.600	1,816.241	-890.300	1,780.600	8.195	3	0.042
els_value_living	null	3	1,879.325	1,891.145	-936.662	1,873.325
els_value_living	random	6	1,877.332	1,900.973	-932.666	1,865.332	7.993	3	0.046
els_life_fulfill	null	3	1,894.489	1,906.309	-944.244	1,888.489
els_life_fulfill	random	6	1,892.646	1,916.287	-940.323	1,880.646	7.843	3	0.049
els	null	3	2,339.984	2,351.805	-1,166.992	2,333.984
els	random	6	2,335.960	2,359.601	-1,161.980	2,323.960	10.024	3	0.018
social_connect	null	3	2,662.146	2,673.966	-1,328.073	2,656.146
social_connect	random	6	2,649.585	2,673.226	-1,318.793	2,637.585	18.560	3	0.000
shs_agency	null	3	2,194.448	2,206.268	-1,094.224	2,188.448
shs_agency	random	6	2,192.722	2,216.364	-1,090.361	2,180.722	7.725	3	0.052
shs_pathway	null	3	2,063.333	2,075.154	-1,028.667	2,057.333
shs_pathway	random	6	2,057.429	2,081.070	-1,022.714	2,045.429	11.905	3	0.008
shs	null	3	2,614.257	2,626.077	-1,304.128	2,608.257
shs	random	6	2,609.356	2,632.998	-1,298.678	2,597.356	10.900	3	0.012
esteem	null	3	1,406.611	1,418.432	-700.306	1,400.611
esteem	random	6	1,411.990	1,435.631	-699.995	1,399.990	0.621	3	0.892
mlq_search	null	3	1,969.761	1,981.582	-981.881	1,963.761
mlq_search	random	6	1,969.144	1,992.785	-978.572	1,957.144	6.617	3	0.085
mlq_presence	null	3	2,107.126	2,118.946	-1,050.563	2,101.126
mlq_presence	random	6	2,104.770	2,128.411	-1,046.385	2,092.770	8.355	3	0.039
mlq	null	3	2,491.164	2,502.985	-1,242.582	2,485.164
mlq	random	6	2,488.569	2,512.210	-1,238.285	2,476.569	8.595	3	0.035
empower	null	3	2,137.277	2,149.098	-1,065.639	2,131.277
empower	random	6	2,135.266	2,158.907	-1,061.633	2,123.266	8.012	3	0.046
ismi_resistance	null	3	1,766.280	1,778.100	-880.140	1,760.280
ismi_resistance	random	6	1,761.891	1,785.532	-874.945	1,749.891	10.389	3	0.016
ismi_discrimation	null	3	1,898.402	1,910.222	-946.201	1,892.402
ismi_discrimation	random	6	1,891.965	1,915.606	-939.982	1,879.965	12.437	3	0.006
sss_affective	null	3	1,983.655	1,995.475	-988.827	1,977.655
sss_affective	random	6	1,976.272	1,999.913	-982.136	1,964.272	13.383	3	0.004
sss_behavior	null	3	1,986.480	1,998.301	-990.240	1,980.480
sss_behavior	random	6	1,982.306	2,005.947	-985.153	1,970.306	10.174	3	0.017
sss_cognitive	null	3	1,992.935	2,004.755	-993.467	1,986.935
sss_cognitive	random	6	1,984.126	2,007.767	-986.063	1,972.126	14.808	3	0.002
sss	null	3	2,756.483	2,768.304	-1,375.242	2,750.483
sss	random	6	2,746.535	2,770.176	-1,367.267	2,734.535	15.949	3	0.001

Post hoc analysis

Table

outcome	time	control			treatment			between
outcome	time	n	estimate	within es	n	estimate	within es	p	es
recovery_stage_a	1st	119	3.20 ± 1.21		119	3.08 ± 1.21		0.455	0.124
recovery_stage_a	2nd	73	3.24 ± 1.18	-0.036	69	3.43 ± 1.18	-0.363	0.334	-0.202
recovery_stage_b	1st	119	18.01 ± 2.98		119	17.85 ± 2.98		0.680	0.091
recovery_stage_b	2nd	73	17.78 ± 2.72	0.129	69	18.50 ± 2.70	-0.373	0.115	-0.411
ras_confidence	1st	119	29.82 ± 5.70		119	30.13 ± 5.70		0.674	-0.105
ras_confidence	2nd	73	30.48 ± 5.08	-0.226	69	32.10 ± 5.02	-0.668	0.058	-0.547
ras_willingness	1st	119	11.61 ± 2.11		119	11.70 ± 2.11		0.759	-0.065
ras_willingness	2nd	73	11.68 ± 1.95	-0.048	69	12.08 ± 1.94	-0.293	0.220	-0.309
ras_goal	1st	119	17.23 ± 3.33		119	17.58 ± 3.33		0.414	-0.188
ras_goal	2nd	73	17.53 ± 3.02	-0.159	69	18.44 ± 2.99	-0.456	0.071	-0.485
ras_reliance	1st	119	13.16 ± 2.93		119	13.34 ± 2.93		0.642	-0.112
ras_reliance	2nd	73	13.41 ± 2.63	-0.159	69	14.16 ± 2.60	-0.522	0.090	-0.475
ras_domination	1st	119	10.02 ± 2.43		119	9.62 ± 2.43		0.211	0.250
ras_domination	2nd	73	9.98 ± 2.27	0.022	69	10.48 ± 2.26	-0.544	0.190	-0.315
symptom	1st	119	31.36 ± 9.95		119	30.12 ± 9.95		0.336	0.256
symptom	2nd	73	30.23 ± 8.77	0.232	69	28.74 ± 8.66	0.283	0.307	0.307
slof_work	1st	119	22.27 ± 4.58		119	22.08 ± 4.58		0.745	0.077
slof_work	2nd	73	22.53 ± 4.13	-0.105	69	22.81 ± 4.09	-0.290	0.693	-0.108
slof_relationship	1st	119	24.68 ± 5.74		119	25.48 ± 5.74		0.284	-0.254
slof_relationship	2nd	73	24.58 ± 5.17	0.034	69	26.16 ± 5.12	-0.216	0.068	-0.503
satisfaction	1st	119	19.90 ± 7.23		119	21.08 ± 7.23		0.211	-0.310
satisfaction	2nd	73	20.72 ± 6.46	-0.218	69	22.26 ± 6.39	-0.312	0.156	-0.405
mhc_emotional	1st	119	10.77 ± 3.75		119	10.96 ± 3.75		0.704	-0.102
mhc_emotional	2nd	73	11.15 ± 3.30	-0.207	69	11.22 ± 3.26	-0.146	0.894	-0.041
mhc_social	1st	119	15.34 ± 6.12		119	15.32 ± 6.12		0.975	0.008
mhc_social	2nd	73	16.00 ± 5.43	-0.211	69	15.97 ± 5.37	-0.210	0.975	0.009
mhc_psychological	1st	119	21.84 ± 7.08		119	21.90 ± 7.08		0.949	-0.016
mhc_psychological	2nd	73	22.85 ± 6.28	-0.280	69	22.61 ± 6.21	-0.198	0.822	0.066
resilisnce	1st	119	16.29 ± 4.41		119	17.02 ± 4.41		0.208	-0.287
resilisnce	2nd	73	17.05 ± 4.01	-0.299	69	18.51 ± 3.97	-0.594	0.029	-0.583
social_provision	1st	119	13.24 ± 2.84		119	13.95 ± 2.84		0.056	-0.438
social_provision	2nd	73	13.05 ± 2.58	0.118	69	14.27 ± 2.55	-0.200	0.005	-0.757
els_value_living	1st	119	16.88 ± 3.20		119	17.25 ± 3.20		0.374	-0.209
els_value_living	2nd	73	17.23 ± 2.89	-0.196	69	17.92 ± 2.86	-0.375	0.156	-0.388
els_life_fulfill	1st	119	12.50 ± 3.34		119	13.17 ± 3.34		0.126	-0.386
els_life_fulfill	2nd	73	12.73 ± 2.97	-0.133	69	13.72 ± 2.94	-0.323	0.047	-0.576
els	1st	119	29.39 ± 6.06		119	30.42 ± 6.06		0.189	-0.344
els	2nd	73	29.99 ± 5.35	-0.202	69	31.64 ± 5.29	-0.406	0.066	-0.548
social_connect	1st	119	27.56 ± 9.23		119	26.53 ± 9.23		0.389	0.232
social_connect	2nd	73	27.44 ± 8.12	0.028	69	23.54 ± 8.01	0.671	0.004	0.875
shs_agency	1st	119	13.97 ± 5.07		119	14.92 ± 5.07		0.153	-0.387
shs_agency	2nd	73	14.38 ± 4.45	-0.166	69	15.72 ± 4.40	-0.329	0.073	-0.550
shs_pathway	1st	119	15.43 ± 4.12		119	16.39 ± 4.12		0.074	-0.441
shs_pathway	2nd	73	16.01 ± 3.68	-0.269	69	17.20 ± 3.64	-0.376	0.054	-0.548
shs	1st	119	29.40 ± 8.77		119	31.30 ± 8.77		0.096	-0.450
shs	2nd	73	30.40 ± 7.70	-0.237	69	32.91 ± 7.60	-0.382	0.052	-0.595
esteem	1st	119	12.80 ± 1.60		119	12.71 ± 1.60		0.685	0.070
esteem	2nd	73	12.67 ± 1.54	0.109	69	12.67 ± 1.53	0.036	0.989	-0.003
mlq_search	1st	119	14.49 ± 3.45		119	15.09 ± 3.45		0.178	-0.272
mlq_search	2nd	73	15.35 ± 3.22	-0.386	69	15.18 ± 3.20	-0.041	0.765	0.072
mlq_presence	1st	119	13.31 ± 4.22		119	13.69 ± 4.22		0.490	-0.150
mlq_presence	2nd	73	14.15 ± 3.87	-0.334	69	14.48 ± 3.84	-0.317	0.606	-0.133
mlq	1st	119	27.80 ± 6.97		119	28.78 ± 6.97		0.277	-0.234
mlq	2nd	73	29.50 ± 6.41	-0.403	69	29.68 ± 6.36	-0.213	0.865	-0.043
empower	1st	119	19.00 ± 4.54		119	19.51 ± 4.54		0.384	-0.211
empower	2nd	73	19.89 ± 4.07	-0.364	69	20.14 ± 4.03	-0.259	0.707	-0.105
ismi_resistance	1st	119	14.42 ± 2.59		119	14.35 ± 2.59		0.841	0.038
ismi_resistance	2nd	73	14.70 ± 2.45	-0.157	69	15.23 ± 2.43	-0.495	0.194	-0.300
ismi_discrimation	1st	119	11.76 ± 3.09		119	11.74 ± 3.09		0.967	0.008
ismi_discrimation	2nd	73	11.31 ± 2.91	0.215	69	10.65 ± 2.89	0.525	0.175	0.319
sss_affective	1st	119	10.40 ± 3.70		119	10.57 ± 3.70		0.727	-0.086
sss_affective	2nd	73	9.98 ± 3.31	0.216	69	9.47 ± 3.27	0.567	0.352	0.264
sss_behavior	1st	119	10.22 ± 3.77		119	10.07 ± 3.77		0.757	0.079
sss_behavior	2nd	73	9.57 ± 3.35	0.337	69	9.30 ± 3.31	0.397	0.634	0.138
sss_cognitive	1st	119	8.74 ± 3.76		119	9.07 ± 3.76		0.502	-0.168
sss_cognitive	2nd	73	8.20 ± 3.35	0.278	69	7.95 ± 3.31	0.572	0.661	0.126
sss	1st	119	29.36 ± 10.58		119	29.71 ± 10.58		0.802	-0.069
sss	2nd	73	27.77 ± 9.26	0.320	69	26.79 ± 9.14	0.586	0.527	0.197

Between group

recovery_stage_a

1st

t(338.71) = -0.75, p = 0.455, Cohen d = 0.12, 95% CI (-0.43 to 0.19)

2st

t(375.98) = 0.97, p = 0.334, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.20 to 0.58)

recovery_stage_b

1st

t(291.89) = -0.41, p = 0.680, Cohen d = 0.09, 95% CI (-0.92 to 0.60)

2st

t(369.28) = 1.58, p = 0.115, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (-0.18 to 1.61)

ras_confidence

1st

t(278.29) = 0.42, p = 0.674, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-1.14 to 1.77)

2st

t(359.83) = 1.90, p = 0.058, Cohen d = -0.55, 95% CI (-0.05 to 3.28)

ras_willingness

1st

t(297.92) = 0.31, p = 0.759, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-0.46 to 0.62)

2st

t(371.63) = 1.23, p = 0.220, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.24 to 1.04)

ras_goal

1st

t(287.18) = 0.82, p = 0.414, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.50 to 1.20)

2st

t(366.77) = 1.81, p = 0.071, Cohen d = -0.49, 95% CI (-0.08 to 1.90)

ras_reliance

1st

t(281.82) = 0.47, p = 0.642, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-0.57 to 0.92)

2st

t(362.99) = 1.70, p = 0.090, Cohen d = -0.48, 95% CI (-0.12 to 1.61)

ras_domination

1st

t(306.23) = -1.25, p = 0.211, Cohen d = 0.25, 95% CI (-1.01 to 0.22)

2st

t(373.73) = 1.31, p = 0.190, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.25 to 1.25)

symptom

1st

t(273.38) = -0.96, p = 0.336, Cohen d = 0.26, 95% CI (-3.78 to 1.29)

2st

t(354.34) = -1.02, p = 0.307, Cohen d = 0.31, 95% CI (-4.37 to 1.38)

slof_work

1st

t(284.47) = -0.33, p = 0.745, Cohen d = 0.08, 95% CI (-1.36 to 0.98)

2st

t(365.00) = 0.40, p = 0.693, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-1.08 to 1.63)

slof_relationship

1st

t(284.00) = 1.07, p = 0.284, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.67 to 2.26)

2st

t(364.67) = 1.83, p = 0.068, Cohen d = -0.50, 95% CI (-0.12 to 3.28)

satisfaction

1st

t(279.46) = 1.25, p = 0.211, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.67 to 3.02)

2st

t(360.95) = 1.42, p = 0.156, Cohen d = -0.40, 95% CI (-0.59 to 3.66)

mhc_emotional

1st

t(272.51) = 0.38, p = 0.704, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-0.77 to 1.14)

2st

t(353.21) = 0.13, p = 0.894, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-1.01 to 1.16)

mhc_social

1st

t(276.10) = -0.03, p = 0.975, Cohen d = 0.01, 95% CI (-1.59 to 1.54)

2st

t(357.55) = -0.03, p = 0.975, Cohen d = 0.01, 95% CI (-1.81 to 1.75)

mhc_psychological

1st

t(276.56) = 0.06, p = 0.949, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-1.75 to 1.87)

2st

t(358.06) = -0.23, p = 0.822, Cohen d = 0.07, 95% CI (-2.30 to 1.83)

resilisnce

1st

t(288.51) = 1.26, p = 0.208, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.40 to 1.85)

2st

t(367.55) = 2.19, p = 0.029, Cohen d = -0.58, 95% CI (0.15 to 2.79)

social_provision

1st

t(287.78) = 1.92, p = 0.056, Cohen d = -0.44, 95% CI (-0.02 to 1.43)

2st

t(367.13) = 2.83, p = 0.005, Cohen d = -0.76, 95% CI (0.37 to 2.07)

els_value_living

1st

t(284.84) = 0.89, p = 0.374, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.45 to 1.19)

2st

t(365.26) = 1.42, p = 0.156, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (-0.26 to 1.64)

els_life_fulfill

1st

t(277.93) = 1.53, p = 0.126, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (-0.19 to 1.52)

2st

t(359.47) = 2.00, p = 0.047, Cohen d = -0.58, 95% CI (0.01 to 1.97)

els

1st

t(274.39) = 1.32, p = 0.189, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-0.51 to 2.58)

2st

t(355.58) = 1.84, p = 0.066, Cohen d = -0.55, 95% CI (-0.11 to 3.40)

social_connect

1st

t(272.32) = -0.86, p = 0.389, Cohen d = 0.23, 95% CI (-3.39 to 1.32)

2st

t(352.96) = -2.88, p = 0.004, Cohen d = 0.88, 95% CI (-6.56 to -1.24)

shs_agency

1st

t(271.81) = 1.43, p = 0.153, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (-0.35 to 2.24)

2st

t(352.27) = 1.80, p = 0.073, Cohen d = -0.55, 95% CI (-0.12 to 2.80)

shs_pathway

1st

t(280.27) = 1.80, p = 0.074, Cohen d = -0.44, 95% CI (-0.09 to 2.01)

2st

t(361.67) = 1.94, p = 0.054, Cohen d = -0.55, 95% CI (-0.02 to 2.40)

shs

1st

t(272.04) = 1.67, p = 0.096, Cohen d = -0.45, 95% CI (-0.34 to 4.14)

2st

t(352.59) = 1.95, p = 0.052, Cohen d = -0.60, 95% CI (-0.02 to 5.04)

esteem

1st

t(329.88) = -0.41, p = 0.685, Cohen d = 0.07, 95% CI (-0.49 to 0.32)

2st

t(375.85) = 0.01, p = 0.989, Cohen d = -0.00, 95% CI (-0.50 to 0.51)

mlq_search

1st

t(304.73) = 1.35, p = 0.178, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.28 to 1.49)

2st

t(373.43) = -0.30, p = 0.765, Cohen d = 0.07, 95% CI (-1.22 to 0.90)

mlq_presence

1st

t(293.56) = 0.69, p = 0.490, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-0.70 to 1.46)

2st

t(370.02) = 0.52, p = 0.606, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-0.94 to 1.61)

mlq

1st

t(295.53) = 1.09, p = 0.277, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.79 to 2.76)

2st

t(370.80) = 0.17, p = 0.865, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-1.93 to 2.29)

empower

1st

t(281.81) = 0.87, p = 0.384, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.65 to 1.67)

2st

t(362.98) = 0.38, p = 0.707, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-1.08 to 1.59)

ismi_resistance

1st

t(314.81) = -0.20, p = 0.841, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-0.73 to 0.59)

2st

t(374.96) = 1.30, p = 0.194, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.27 to 1.34)

ismi_discrimation

1st

t(311.27) = -0.04, p = 0.967, Cohen d = 0.01, 95% CI (-0.80 to 0.77)

2st

t(374.54) = -1.36, p = 0.175, Cohen d = 0.32, 95% CI (-1.62 to 0.30)

sss_affective

1st

t(279.90) = 0.35, p = 0.727, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-0.78 to 1.11)

2st

t(361.34) = -0.93, p = 0.352, Cohen d = 0.26, 95% CI (-1.60 to 0.57)

sss_behavior

1st

t(277.20) = -0.31, p = 0.757, Cohen d = 0.08, 95% CI (-1.11 to 0.81)

2st

t(358.73) = -0.48, p = 0.634, Cohen d = 0.14, 95% CI (-1.37 to 0.83)

sss_cognitive

1st

t(278.55) = 0.67, p = 0.502, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-0.63 to 1.29)

2st

t(360.08) = -0.44, p = 0.661, Cohen d = 0.13, 95% CI (-1.35 to 0.85)

sss

1st

t(270.20) = 0.25, p = 0.802, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-2.36 to 3.05)

2st

t(349.99) = -0.63, p = 0.527, Cohen d = 0.20, 95% CI (-4.01 to 2.06)

Within treatment group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(184.50) = 2.28, p = 0.048, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (0.05 to 0.64)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(163.19) = 2.27, p = 0.049, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (0.09 to 1.22)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(157.52) = 4.03, p = 0.000, Cohen d = -0.67, 95% CI (1.01 to 2.94)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(165.74) = 1.79, p = 0.151, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.04 to 0.80)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(161.21) = 2.77, p = 0.013, Cohen d = -0.46, 95% CI (0.25 to 1.47)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(158.98) = 3.16, p = 0.004, Cohen d = -0.52, 95% CI (0.31 to 1.33)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(169.32) = 3.34, p = 0.002, Cohen d = -0.54, 95% CI (0.35 to 1.37)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(155.49) = -1.71, p = 0.180, Cohen d = 0.28, 95% CI (-2.98 to 0.22)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(160.08) = 1.76, p = 0.162, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.09 to 1.55)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(159.89) = 1.31, p = 0.387, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.35 to 1.70)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(158.00) = 1.89, p = 0.122, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.06 to 2.42)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(155.13) = 0.88, p = 0.762, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-0.33 to 0.86)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(156.61) = 1.27, p = 0.414, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.36 to 1.66)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(156.80) = 1.19, p = 0.469, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.47 to 1.89)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(161.77) = 3.61, p = 0.001, Cohen d = -0.59, 95% CI (0.68 to 2.32)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(161.46) = 1.22, p = 0.452, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.20 to 0.85)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(160.24) = 2.27, p = 0.048, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (0.09 to 1.24)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(157.37) = 1.95, p = 0.106, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.01 to 1.12)

els

1st vs 2st

t(155.90) = 2.44, p = 0.031, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (0.23 to 2.20)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(155.05) = -4.04, p = 0.000, Cohen d = 0.67, 95% CI (-4.46 to -1.53)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(154.84) = 1.98, p = 0.099, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (0.00 to 1.60)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(158.34) = 2.27, p = 0.049, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (0.11 to 1.53)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(154.93) = 2.30, p = 0.046, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (0.23 to 2.99)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(180.09) = -0.22, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-0.42 to 0.33)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(168.67) = 0.25, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-0.62 to 0.81)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(163.89) = 1.93, p = 0.111, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.02 to 1.61)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(164.73) = 1.30, p = 0.391, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.47 to 2.26)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(158.97) = 1.57, p = 0.238, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.16 to 1.42)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(173.10) = 3.06, p = 0.005, Cohen d = -0.50, 95% CI (0.31 to 1.45)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(171.53) = -3.24, p = 0.003, Cohen d = 0.53, 95% CI (-1.75 to -0.43)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(158.18) = -3.43, p = 0.002, Cohen d = 0.57, 95% CI (-1.74 to -0.47)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(157.07) = -2.40, p = 0.036, Cohen d = 0.40, 95% CI (-1.39 to -0.13)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(157.62) = -3.45, p = 0.001, Cohen d = 0.57, 95% CI (-1.75 to -0.48)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(154.18) = -3.52, p = 0.001, Cohen d = 0.59, 95% CI (-4.55 to -1.28)

Within control group

recovery_stage_a

1st vs 2st

t(180.67) = 0.23, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-0.26 to 0.33)

recovery_stage_b

1st vs 2st

t(161.23) = -0.80, p = 0.846, Cohen d = 0.13, 95% CI (-0.78 to 0.33)

ras_confidence

1st vs 2st

t(156.05) = 1.40, p = 0.325, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.27 to 1.61)

ras_willingness

1st vs 2st

t(163.56) = 0.30, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-0.35 to 0.47)

ras_goal

1st vs 2st

t(159.43) = 0.99, p = 0.648, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-0.30 to 0.89)

ras_reliance

1st vs 2st

t(157.39) = 0.99, p = 0.652, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-0.25 to 0.75)

ras_domination

1st vs 2st

t(166.82) = -0.14, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-0.53 to 0.46)

symptom

1st vs 2st

t(154.20) = -1.43, p = 0.309, Cohen d = 0.23, 95% CI (-2.68 to 0.43)

slof_work

1st vs 2st

t(158.40) = 0.65, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-0.54 to 1.07)

slof_relationship

1st vs 2st

t(158.22) = -0.21, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.03, 95% CI (-1.10 to 0.89)

satisfaction

1st vs 2st

t(156.50) = 1.35, p = 0.357, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.38 to 2.03)

mhc_emotional

1st vs 2st

t(153.87) = 1.28, p = 0.404, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.20 to 0.96)

mhc_social

1st vs 2st

t(155.22) = 1.31, p = 0.387, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.33 to 1.64)

mhc_psychological

1st vs 2st

t(155.40) = 1.73, p = 0.170, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.14 to 2.15)

resilisnce

1st vs 2st

t(159.94) = 1.86, p = 0.129, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.05 to 1.55)

social_provision

1st vs 2st

t(159.66) = -0.74, p = 0.923, Cohen d = 0.12, 95% CI (-0.70 to 0.32)

els_value_living

1st vs 2st

t(158.54) = 1.22, p = 0.449, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.21 to 0.91)

els_life_fulfill

1st vs 2st

t(155.92) = 0.82, p = 0.824, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-0.32 to 0.78)

els

1st vs 2st

t(154.58) = 1.25, p = 0.428, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.35 to 1.56)

social_connect

1st vs 2st

t(153.80) = -0.17, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.03, 95% CI (-1.55 to 1.30)

shs_agency

1st vs 2st

t(153.60) = 1.03, p = 0.612, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-0.37 to 1.18)

shs_pathway

1st vs 2st

t(156.80) = 1.67, p = 0.194, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.11 to 1.28)

shs

1st vs 2st

t(153.69) = 1.46, p = 0.291, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.35 to 2.35)

esteem

1st vs 2st

t(176.64) = -0.70, p = 0.974, Cohen d = 0.11, 95% CI (-0.50 to 0.24)

mlq_search

1st vs 2st

t(166.23) = 2.43, p = 0.033, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (0.16 to 1.56)

mlq_presence

1st vs 2st

t(161.87) = 2.09, p = 0.077, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (0.05 to 1.63)

mlq

1st vs 2st

t(162.63) = 2.52, p = 0.025, Cohen d = -0.40, 95% CI (0.37 to 3.03)

empower

1st vs 2st

t(157.38) = 2.26, p = 0.050, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (0.11 to 1.66)

ismi_resistance

1st vs 2st

t(170.27) = 1.00, p = 0.642, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-0.27 to 0.83)

ismi_discrimation

1st vs 2st

t(168.84) = -1.36, p = 0.354, Cohen d = 0.21, 95% CI (-1.09 to 0.20)

sss_affective

1st vs 2st

t(156.66) = -1.34, p = 0.363, Cohen d = 0.22, 95% CI (-1.04 to 0.20)

sss_behavior

1st vs 2st

t(155.64) = -2.09, p = 0.077, Cohen d = 0.34, 95% CI (-1.26 to -0.03)

sss_cognitive

1st vs 2st

t(156.15) = -1.72, p = 0.174, Cohen d = 0.28, 95% CI (-1.16 to 0.08)

sss

1st vs 2st

t(153.00) = -1.97, p = 0.101, Cohen d = 0.32, 95% CI (-3.18 to 0.00)

Pathway Summary

Pathway Summary

Consort map

Demographic information

Measurement

Table

Plot

Data analysis

Table

Text

Likelihood ratio tests

Post hoc analysis

Table

Between group

Within treatment group

Within control group

Plot

Clinical significance